Leon
Trotsky: With Marxist Spectacles
May
16, 1930
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 2, 1930, New York 1975, p. 228 f.]
The
tardiness of my reply is to be explained not only by my very heavy
correspondence and other work but also by the fact that for a certain
time I was in doubt whether it would be expedient, after the
organizational split, to begin a polemic in private letters. Today in
Germany there are two publications in which the polemic can be
conducted in such a manner that third persons, who are quite
numerous, will learn something from it. However, in order not to miss
an opportunity to eliminate misunderstandings (if they are only
misunderstandings), I will attempt to answer your letter privately
also.
The
chief argument of your letter — which is the chief argument of
Urbahns as well — consists of the contention that "German
matters must not be viewed with Russian spectacles." But this
argument is the most important reason for the split, because it is a
national or, more correctly expressed, a nationalist argument, which
has nothing in common with an internationalist point of view. I have
been accustomed to view German as well as Russian affairs with
Marxist spectacles and the national chauvinists were never able to
dissuade me from this habit when they claimed that we, the
intransigent Marxists, viewed Russian affairs with German spectacles
(since Marx was German). A revolutionary or, rather,
pseudo-revolutionary tendency that is national and not international
proves thereby that it is non-Marxist and anti-Marxist. The single
fact that the Leninbund has no ideological comrades in the
international field today already condemns it inexorably from the
Marxist point of view. In France, Urbahns claimed "Contre le
Courant." But this group has since disintegrated and
disappeared. Urbahns claimed part of the American comrades; they have
decisively rejected his advances. This proves that the spectacles of
the Leninbund may perhaps be German, but never Marxist.
You
maintain, dear comrades, that German conditions cannot be judged from
away off in Constantinople. I admit this, too, and I have always
expressed myself on internal German questions with the greatest
caution. Do you believe, however, that it is much easier to view
Russian, French, and Chinese affairs from Berlin or from
Wattenscheid? The point of departure in the whole conflict was the
question of the class character of the Soviet state Am I to deny
Urbahns and yourselves the right to express your opinions on that
question because you live in Germany? No, that I will not do! I
cannot accept your point of view — not because it is German but
because it is wrong. We have in Russia elements who have the same
point of view (Myasnikov), and since the Left Opposition cannot
conduct any common work with these elements in Russia, how can we
alter our principled line for the sake of the Leninbund in Germany?
When you look at the matter more closely, you will not demand this of
us. The fundamental mistake of Urbahns consists in (a) his theory of
the state in general (basically he is with Otto Bauer against Marx,
Engels, and Lenin); (b) his evaluation of the Soviet state; (c) the
lessons of the Chinese revolution; (d) his relation to the Comintern
and the Communist Party of Germany. All these are not internal German
affairs, about which it would be difficult to form a concrete
judgment from this distance, but on the contrary involve the most
principled and fundamental questions of communist theory and
international communist policy.